Baroness Deech: My Lords, I start by declaring my interests: I am a BBC governor. Your Lordships will not see or hear my like again. I am the last of a species that has served the country and the BBC well over 80 years, and overseen its growth into the respected and influential organisation that it is now, with 250 million worldwide listeners and news that reaches 80 per cent of the population every week. I was appointed in response to an advertisement in the newspapers, according to Nolan principles. Like my fellow governors, once led by my noble friend Lord Ryder, I am beholden to no one, except the licence fee payers. I have no other interests to promote. The governors have been remarkably good value for money, with salaries way below those paid by Ofcom.
	Even in my few years as a governor, we have seen changes introduced that would not have been contemplated or imagined 10 years ago, when the charter was last renewed, or even five years ago— 24-hour news, online services, the website, in its position of prominence, and widespread public interaction with the BBC through all sorts of new technologies. Those changes have enabled every citizen to express himself or herself if they want to, make common cause with others and communicate with the BBC. In most recent years, with licence fee money, the BBC has launched a digital curriculum for the education of children—or grandchildren in your Lordships' case—and it has started digital switchover. It has become a leader in Europe in its field, with the assistance of Freeview.
	With that record, why is change necessary? It is necessary not because of problems with the governors, but because the broadcasting market has changed and our national views on appropriate corporate governance have developed to such a point that they must be taken into account in a new charter.
	The draft charter, which I am happy to support, is the product of the most sustained consultation and debate process I have ever known. It was starting when I became a governor four years ago. The Government's first consultation paper was in 2003. Arguably, too much time has been spent on examining and digging up programmes and services that have barely bedded in. There was never such a deep consultation before—DCMS seminars, White and Green Papers, public and private debates. That is more, dare I say, than a parliamentary timetable might have allowed for were the BBC to be based on an Act of Parliament, instead of, as it should be, a Royal Charter. It is not at the mercy of political cross-currents or priorities. The result is a charter with four times as many clauses as last time and changes fit for the 21st century. The charter is renewed and the licence fee is to be retained. The public, as I will show, rate the independence of the BBC very highly. That independence rests on a constitutional structure that has stood for decades—tinker with it at your peril.
	In all the discussions and examinations that have preceded and will follow this debate, your Lordships must not risk losing sight of the two essences of the BBC that need defending—its independence and its quality. They will be safeguarded by the trust, but they are not at the forefront of the concerns of its competitors. Only the trust can safeguard independence and listen to the licence fee payers, whose interests must dominate. The trust needs the strength and the mandate to do that job. The trust will follow the governors in setting the strategic direction of the BBC and overseeing the work of the executive board. The trust will be the final arbiter of complaints. It will seek the views of the licence fee payer and will set objective measures, as has been mentioned earlier in the debate. It will have regard to the BBC's impact on the market, bearing in mind that up to half the BBC's network production will be available for independents.
	Your Lordships might ask whether too much sensitivity is being shown towards the BBC's market impact on its commercial competition, whose concern is its own commercial self-interest and not innovation, creativity or independence. The BBC has agreed to rein itself in for the sake of the preservation of competition and a broader market in a way that would never be applied to competition in new health or education measures in the NHS or the education system. The BBC's overriding duty must be to its licence fee payers and it has to give them the best return for their money. Indeed, the website has already been trimmed back solely in response to market fears, yet there is no guarantee in return that commercial broadcasters would thrive and grow more if the BBC were to be diminished—on the contrary. The charter will ensure that there is no unchecked expansionism.
	The licence fee concept gives stability and a measure of freedom from political interference and manipulation. In return, the BBC has an obligation directly to its public. The trust will consult and listen to the public, as did the governors. The licence fee does not only bring TV; let us recall also radio, the website and the training of media people throughout the industry. The BBC sets standards throughout the whole industry, educates the young and learners of all ages, talks to minorities in their own languages, mirrors local communities back to themselves, preserves the languages of the nations and is a guarantee of news and information regardless of the ups and downs of the rest of the audio-visual industry. To follow my own interest, it is above all a supporter of live music. The classical music scene of this country, with the Proms and the orchestras and choirs, rests to a large extent on the BBC and the licence fee payers' resources—and well used they are.
	Our informed democracy has come to rely on this provision and communication. Even if the fee rose to £150 or £180 a year, it is still under £4 a week, which is less than buying a daily newspaper, no more than the cost of a few tickets for the more popular entertainment and less than subscriptions to commercial rivals. The licence fee forms 23 per cent of the total revenue of the entire industry, a figure that is down from 46 per cent in 10 years.
	It has been shown that there is public support for the level of the fee as bid for by the BBC. Professor Patrick Barwise's independent report on public opinion on the licence fee bid shows that most licence fee payers would, if they had to, pay substantially more than the current £10 a month for BBC services. In fact, when new services were brought to mind, up to 70 per cent to 75 per cent of them were happy to pay a higher fee. They are evenly divided over paying extra fees to help the vulnerable to achieve digital switchover, which is a government proposal accepted by the BBC in the interests of ensuring universality of digital reception.
	The BBC is highly trusted and valued by the public and realises that the adaptation to changes in markets and technologies requires a slightly higher licence fee. According to Barwise, the public want the BBC to continue as one of the pillars of broadcasting and would prefer it to be strong and innovative, even if it takes a few more pounds a year. Like a husband or wife in a long marriage, there is always something to grumble about in the daily offerings, but it would be intolerable to weaken that companion to our daily lives. The support is not begrudged, for the strength of the union is recognised.
	I see no room for further scrutiny by the NAO. The current arrangements came into play only in 2003 and appear to work well. There are special issues of creativity and risk-taking that cannot be amenable to ordinary audit and need to be shared by the BBC and the NAO. The BBC's expenditure is under other agents of scrutiny. The BBC's commercial arm is striving for efficiencies and self-help. There are plans to save some £350 million a year and to cut many thousands of staff. Above all, there is no lack of accountability—to Parliament, as witnessed by this debate, to Select Committees from time to time, to Ofcom in certain areas, by service licences and by approvals for new services. Indeed, never was a body so accountable, given the need to preserve its independence.
	Given the BBC's record of leading the way in revolutions—its website, its digital progress and the way in which it provides the public with a technology that it now seems our lives cannot do without, noble Lords, to quote Barwise,
	"should not be asking the BBC for a Soviet-style plan which says exactly what it will be doing, and how it will allocate its resources, in five or seven",
	or 10 years' time. Its past record is its defence, and the new charter achieves the right blend of obligation and flexibility. We have seen the problems that can be caused in other areas of public life by micro-management and too much target-setting. Your Lordships should have confidence in the future of an organisation that it has watched over for 80 years. The BBC should speak to and listen to the public who fund it, with no unnecessary regulatory or political barriers between them to distort the message.